Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Studies

[bkkyosemite]

excerpts:

"Standford University researcher Rodolfo Cortes Barragan to a subset of the data found that the probability of the “huge discrepancies” of which “nearly all are in favor of Hillary Clinton by a huge margin” was “statistically impossible” and that “the probability of this this happening was is 1 in 77 billion”.

"Namely that Hillary’s win was could have only been possible a result of widespread election fraud."

" the data found that the probability of the “huge discrepancies” of which “nearly all are in favor of Hillary Clinton by a huge margin” was “statistically impossible” and that “the probability of this this happening was is 1 in 77 billion”.

"Furthermore, the researchers found that the election fraud only occurred in places where the voting machines were hackable and that did not keep an paper trail of the ballots."

"In these locations Hillary won by massive margins."

"On the other hand, in locations that were not hackable and did keep paper trails of the ballots Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton."

http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanford-berkley-study-1-77-billion-chance-hillary-won-primary-without-widespread-election-fraud/

Pick it apart all you want but it is the truth. Four studies..........the same truth. Another stolen election and the winners of the fraudulent election are gleeful. Democracy has a problem. My opinion of course.

[NWCorona]

1. Those odds aren't that bad at all.

[TheBlackAdder]

40. HRC needs to go out and buy some Powerball tickets. Winning that will be cake to do.

[NWCorona]

50. Truth!

[rhett o rick]

141. She already has. She has "won" $150,000,000. That was rigged also.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. I am a Senator Sanders supporter...

But, given the inevitable outcome of the nomination process, this post is not helpful to the overall goals of both Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton supporters, which is to deny the Presidency of the GOP (specifically, the grifter and overall scumbag that goes by the moniker Donald Drumpf)...

[bkkyosemite]

5. The reports all over this country cannot just be shoved under the rug of deception. Truth is truth.

[Cooley Hurd]

11. Please, pragmatism is needed moving forward...

Trump must be stopped. THIS should be our #1 goal. *I'm REALLY not happy that Senator Sanders didn't prevail*, but my pragmatism directs me to a shared, common goal going towards November 8th.

[tk2kewl]

20. there is nothing pragmatic about ignoring election fraud

[RobertEarl]

22. So you'll be fine if we rig the election?

The attitude that "As long as we win, no matter how much we cheat", is not a true democratic value. No one should be proposing any such thing.

The programmers of the vote counting software now control the vote counts. Some people are fine with that?

[Cooley Hurd]

36. I will be happy with whatever it takes to deny the GOP the WH.

A very simple goal. We will have time after the election to straighten out the inter-party stuff.

[RobertEarl]

41. The vote count theft is not inter-party

Shows you have no clue about this and you have not done any research, so none of your words are worth considering when it comes to this matter.

Election fraud is what gave us GWB. And still today we have people thinking it doesn't happen? FTS.

[Cooley Hurd]

47. I have no clue?

Your hostility and personal attack, in the face of what is probably the most IMPORTANT election in our lifetimes, is neither helpful to both Senator Sanders or Secretary Clinton.

Save your hostility for Drumpf supporters, my friend! We're all on the same side, despite how the sausage was processed.

[votesparks]

108. That is an insult to veterans

and everyone who fought and died for an actual democracy.

[Cooley Hurd]

109. Um... wat?

My Dad was in WW2 and fought in the Battle of the Bulge. If you think you're in a position to lecture ME about "insulting veterans" you're sorely mistaken.

Scurry off now...

[stonecutter357]

130. "insulting veterans" Seems legit !

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

88. What's wrong is wrong.

[Cooley Hurd]

60. Wow...

...just, wow.

[Pastiche423]

72. YOU ARE HAPPY WITH FRAUD!

Don't you get it? There has been election fraud recorded in ELEVEN states.

There are two huge lawsuits already filed regard the ELECTION FRAUD.

There are also state election fraud lawsuits.

This election has been a FRAUD.

And you're cool with that?

[Cooley Hurd]

107. I, most certainly, am not "happy with fraud".

...and I fucking GET it!

OUR party has been corrupted by ugly, fucking politics.

Triangulation, "third way", DLC, ALL of that horseshit, has robbed us of what we were in the New Deal and the Great Society.

But, guess what? We're facing a danger of which I have, in my 45 years of being a Democrat, NEVER EVEN FATHOMED. This Drumpf clown is a danger to our very way of lives.

*Yes, our day-to-day lives*.

I sincerely, ideally, would like a different outcome than the one we have been dealt. But it is what it is and we need to focus, like a laser beam, on defeating this populist fascist.

Many years ago, I read "It Can't Happen Here". It seemed, to me, a quaint tale of a long-bygone era in human history (even though it proved to be prescient afterwards).

We're at the same precipice, that Sinclair Lewis predicted, again.

*drops mike*

[Pastiche423]

115. And she isn't a danger to our lives?

[Cooley Hurd]

124. No.

*drops mike again*

[Amaril]

142. I so don't agree with you on

sweeping this issue under the carpet. That's what we keep doing every time something happens, and we're fucking running out of carpets!

........but this post literally made me

Well played, sir / madam. Well played.

[riversedge]

78. Even Bernie said the elections were not rigged.

[kstewart33]

77. The story is a joke, right?

The website looks like a political version of The Onion.

If the study was credible, it would be all over the web.

In less than 48 hours, nonsense like this will be banned.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

86. lol

[snot]

119. Guess what: it's possible to fight both Trump and election fraud at the same time.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

145. Thank you. This election is over. If this crazy stuff is true, then work on it for the next election

instead of trying to call our Dem candidate "illegitimate." I personally have very little faith in the caucuses and open primaries that Bernie won. A caucus is no way to pick a candidate IMO.

[randome]

3. It's not a Stanford study. It's a blog by idiots for idiots.

[Number23]

117. "It's a blog by idiots for idiots." And now it's -- shockingly!!-- made its way to GDP!!

[kerry-is-my-prez]

146. No waaaay! Why is THAT surprising?

[vdogg]

4. Higgins Network News?

What the actual fuck?!?! What in the world? So some random dude on an unknown/obscure network puts forth a non-peer reviewed study and we're supposed to take this as Gospel? There are so many better things you can be doing with your life right now. Go peddle this stuff over at JPR. You'll find a far more gullible and accepting audience over there.

http://alexanderhiggins.com/
Literally EVERY single headline on this sites front page is a different, unfounded Hillary conspiracy. Yeah, this is a reputable source.

[RobertEarl]

24. And you?

You consider your time well spent condoning election fraud?

If you had done much research you wouldn't be posting attacks on those who have.

[MH1]

63. "If you had done much research ..."

I'm gonna fill that in with, you would be posting from reputable sources, not hit sites.

Don't deflect the question about your sources to an attack the person for something they didn't state. Come up with good sources, they (and I) might be all ears. Until then, not so much.

(As you know by now, that "Stanford Study", for one, is no such thing. Posting drivel detracts from worthy points that could be made.)

[RobertEarl]

105. Have you researched any?

I don't think so, if you had you wouldn't be harping on me, you'd be harping on the e-voting that has been proven, time and again, to not only be prone to glitches, but complete miscounts.

You are not all ears, so don't even try that with me. Go read the DU Election Reform Forum as a place to start research. Although you will find many deniers in there, there are many who have researched this matter.

Just remember how bush got elected twice and then you'll know what's bullshit and what's Truth.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

147. I've done research that has ended up in reputable journals- you have to use data from peer-reviewed

reputable sources. Your article is only as good as your sources.

[felix_numinous]

56. Please

please make this an OP.

[obamanut2012]

66. +1

[SFnomad]

6. tick tock, tick tock ... time is running out for OPs like this n/t

[pinebox]

16. "Tick tock!" Everyone drink!

[apcalc]

7. There is NO SCHOOL named Standford.

The guy cook this crap up in his basement?

Too funny.

[BootinUp]

10. intentionally mispelled?

[brush]

23. And the alleged Cal link spells Berkeley without the first "e" — Berkley.

[bkkyosemite]

8. Have at it guys and gals. There is so much more including those actual studies...

[Hortensis]

9. Pure garbage. "Widespread fraud?" Outrageous

to even post these lies lying ascribed to Stanford and Berkeley researchers.

"Namely that Hillary’s win was could have only been possible a result of widespread election fraud."

This hostile propaganda is refuted completely by every reputable political statistical group, who all predicted that her great advantages would cause her to win the primary by substantial margins, no fraud of any kind needed. Through most of the primaries it has been increasingly impossible for Sanders to catch up, his chances of winning always only theoretical at best.

[reformist2]

12. It could be the MIC is involved. Or do we pretend they steer clear of our elections?

[msongs]

13. bernie is one of the MIC's biggest supporters lol. need an F-35? call Uncle Bernie nt

[mikeysnot]

27. ^^

[Phlem]

32. I know right? Ignorance is bliss.

The MIC never bends any politician over for Military contracts! They can just move their manufacturing to another state and blame said politician for the job losses.

And then when said Politician who opposed the war votes to support the troops, he's also guilty of voting for war.

It's all just very simple, the Government and the MIC are wholly honest entities that would never do anything wrong or lie about anything! EVER!

[COLGATE4]

55. I'm pretty sure it was the Illuminati

or maybe the Bilderberg group, assisted (as usual) by the Masons and the NWO troops. I know it's true - Alex Jones told me so.

[stonecutter357]

132. +1000

[Faux pas]

14. Kickin' for the truth!

[TwilightZone]

15. It's not Stanford. It's a grad student. There's been no peer or independent review of the study.

This has been covered a dozen times already in GDP. It's nonsense.

[bkkyosemite]

19. All the many irregularities out there are just nonsense right wrong!

[TwilightZone]

26. If one has to lie repeatedly trying to make a point...

one might consider that one is making a point, just not the point that one thought one was making.

Further, using things like self-selected "favorability rating" polls as some kind of proof of voter fraud, while pretending that real-world things like mail-in ballots don't exist, is rather ridiculous.

[bkkyosemite]

39. this is the second time in two days I have been called a liar. I am not a liar!...unbelievable.

[TwilightZone]

45. You could bother to read my post.

I'm not calling you a liar. I'm calling the idiot who wrote the article a liar. It's complete nonsense, based on nothing but conjecture and distraction.

It's also not a Stanford study - it's a grad student who threw a bunch of nonsense together and called it a day. Don't be so gullible.

[Squinch]

17. Son, you've been had. Again.

[BootinUp]

21. lol nt

[obamanut2012]

67. "Standford" and "Berkley" -- lolz

[Squinch]

68. The boys at the Higgins News Network are not the best spellers...

[obamanut2012]

127. I tried to find them on my Comcast Xfinity

No luck!

[yardwork]

100. Noticed the same thing. I mean really!!

[obamanut2012]

126. Caralina and Dook

[MadBadger]

129. It's definitely Dook though

[obamanut2012]

138. I know -- i did that one on purpose

GO BLUE DAVILLS!!!

[yardwork]

133. Hey, hey!

[obamanut2012]

137. hahaha Go Hails!

[Number23]

118. Oh stop! Standford is a totally reputable institution! Many graduates go on to Yell or Hartsvard!

[Hav]

121. I got my degree in mystical statistics from Hogwarts!

[obamanut2012]

128. Professor Trelawney teaches it

[obamanut2012]

125. And Brun -- Amy Carter went there

[hedda_foil]

18. Check out the source of this "report" please.

It's
http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/
Hopefully someone else will explain why this source is no longer considered trustworthy on DU.

[bkkyosemite]

25. Because DU is no longer for anyone but Clinton supporters. No choices otherwise

no desent against their chosen one or the word is fuck or or any other insult. The irregularities WERE RAMPANT in this primary yet those on here will only turn their heads and go ahead with their one sided belief that everything is fine. It is not fine and will not be fine for millions of Americans who now have their eyes and ears wide open to the corruption in our voting system and the Oligarchy's control over our Country.

[hedda_foil]

31. I am not now and have never been a Clinton supporter.

BBV was revealed right here as film flam back in 2004, when DU was DU.

[TwilightZone]

34. Probably because Bev Harris is largely considered to be a fraud on DU...

dating back to 2004.

Here's an archive thread about her:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x340188

Enjoy.

Note: bailey77 in those threads was determined to be (more likely than not) Bev Harris herself trying to do damage control.

[hedda_foil]

52. Thanks TZ. I'm hopeless at digging out old threads on are rival versions of DU.

[dlwickham]

103. that's a name I haven't seen in years

and I could have gone much longer without seeing it again

that was a nasty time on here

[MattP]

28. Odds that this is bullshit

100%

[yourpaljoey]

29. We know that. We called the cheating in real time, remember?

[still_one]

30. I am not surprised, and while the counts have narrowed in California, Hillary will be the winner

when the voting is finished, based on the current lead, distribution in f the votes, and remaining votes to count

[bkkyosemite]

42. Does it not seem strange to you that she declared victory before the count in CA and elsewhere

.......counting and including delegates that now AP seems to think was wrong. It was very wrong and intentional to suppress the vote...but you as a HRC supporter probably don't mind that.

[still_one]

51. No. That was AP projecting it based on its models and early voting. There are about 1.4 million

ballots left to count, and while the results for the presidential primary will narrow, the distribution and votes coming in make it very unlikely that Bernie would win, though based on the proportional allocation of delegates he will gain a few delegates, but it appears Hillary will still win the state

As to the view that the votes were suppressed, that announcement was made after the polls closed, so there was no suppression of votes

For vote by mail the ballot must be postmarked or delivered to any polling place by June 7th, and arrive in the county office up to 3 days after the election

This is made very clear at the SOS website, and voter pamphlet every registered voter should receive

[TwilightZone]

64. "AP seems to think was wrong"

Source? They have said nothing of the sort.

They can count to 2383. They did so and reported it.

This isn't difficult.

[Lord Magus]

73. No it does not seem strange to me at all.

Hillary had already won before CA voted. The AP is capable of counting delegates and she'd crossed the 2383 threshold. And your assertion that the AP now thinks it was wrong is nonsense.

[Surya Gayatri]

33. Alex Jones-worthy balderdash. You need another hobby...

[woolldog]

35. Pathetic what Sanders fans have become.

[bkkyosemite]

43. Yea so pathetic the name calling on here is what is pathetic!

[woolldog]

46. If the name fits...

[zappaman]

37. Lol!

[Tarc]

38. Well, the chances of Bernie being the Dem nominee is...ONE IN ELEVENTY-JILLION!

See, it's easy to pluck big numbers out of one's backside.

[bkkyosemite]

44. Probably you are right because of FRAUD

[Tarc]

48. Surely you can provide links to sources covering Sanders' legal challenges to a primary result?

I mean, if this alleged "FRAUD" is so widespread and rampant, his legal team must have investigated themselves and filed in court to challenge the results of one of the states he lost?

So by all means, provide evidence of these challenges. We'll wait...

PS - Yes, Arizona's GOP closed polling stations, and I believe both camps filed challenges there...but that hurt Hillary more, given her strong Latinx support

[obamanut2012]

69. OMG quit being ridiculous, this doesn;t help

It's actually one in a quillion zillion willion.

[Metric System]

49. I felt brain cells dying off as I read your post.

[bkkyosemite]

58. Maybe you should see a neurologist..

[apcalc]

53. This 'supposed 'study' used ecit poll discrepancies

Totally unreliable...shown time and time again...

Unbelieveable any mathematician would rely on them to conduct a 'study'....

[1StrongBlackMan]

136. The "studies" author isn't a mathematician ...

he's in the psychology field.

And, from what the internet says, he's quite the Bernie fan.

[AzDar]

54. Ayup. Hillary has learned well from her Bush brethren...

[Chasstev365]

57. Nothing to see; Get Over it; Move on......

To all the people who say it's not possible, remember when the GOP told us it was not possible in 2002 with Max Clelland in Georgia and with John Kerry in 2004 in Ohio? Why is your reaction so different now?

[glennward]

61. Odd that this was a well reserched Stanford study 1 in 177 billion. nt

[SidDithers]

62. ...

Sid

[obamanut2012]

65. lolz you guys!

[Sheepshank]

70. Crack pot report (not a study), where you bolded way too much-conspiracy style

Derp

[realmirage]

71. Conspiracy theorists are immune to reality

[Lord Magus]

74. This fake non-peer-reviewed "study" is simply a lie.

Pure tinfoil hat bullshit.

[LexVegas]

75. ...

[Hekate]

76. "In locations...that did keep paper trails" -- you mean like California?

Last I checked, the counting was proceeding as normal, and none of the statewide office or national office results had changed, percentage-wise. BERNIE STILL LOST BY 11+% IN CALIFORNIA.

But y'all carry on.

[Agnosticsherbet]

80. It wasn't a Stanford Study and it wasn't peer reviewed.

So they just, lied.

[itsrobert]

81. We found the fraud

It is the study you posted.

[JoePhilly]

82. The is the actual Stanford location where the study was conducted ...

[LenaBaby61]

84. I usually don't enter into these kind of 'kook & weirdo' threads....

But that tin-foil house is hilarious

And quite fitting of this thread.

Now as I think about it, did Hillary win ANY primary states? Maybe Sen. Sanders won 'em ALL--even the Southern states which were too conservative to compete in.

[JoePhilly]

85. The entire primary was as fake as the moon landing!

Hillary held no rallies in any state or city ... it was all green screen.

And the voting booths ... all done with Minecraft.

[obamanut2012]

97. hahahahahaha

[redstateblues]

111. One of your best yet JoePhilly!

Tin foil house. Fantastic!

[JoePhilly]

135. The level of ...

... crazy being posted in OPs these days is making it harder and harder for me to keep up.

I fear I'm going to have to find a picture of the entire Earth covered in tin foil in the not too distant future.

[Rex]

83. Well then they should take the studies to the WH and the DNC and raise hell if they feel concerned.

If this is true, then it should be easy to reproduce the results.

[onecaliberal]

87. The same White House hiding her email until after the election?

[Rex]

89. Then go to the media or Congress, surely this would be front page news all over the world right?

Unless you are going to tell me the world is bought and paid for?

[onecaliberal]

91. No nothing is bought and paid for. Do you live under a rock?

[Rex]

93. Then you have no point at all?

Thanks, I thought not. Like I said, this should be all over the place is true...don't get mad at me for pointing out the obvious.

[onecaliberal]

95. I have a great point, I just don't waste time arguing with walls.

[Rex]

96. Good then you are done and will walk away, with your point still intact.

[onecaliberal]

98. If you think Americans don't know this election was stolen by the people who own everything

And that America is an oligachy, I don't give two fucks about a conversation with someone like that. You and yours are going to get exactly what you have coming. Too bad the rest of us will be dragged further down with you. What's sad is you really think they care about you, the depth of that cluelessness is truly sad and pathetic. #block

[Rex]

99. Tell me, when did you first start realizing America was a plutocracy?

Was it when Bernie Sanders decided to run for POTUS? Just the facts, please.

Oh right, you ran off to block me or whatever...

[LenaBaby61]

90. You mean the same emails...

That Sen. Sanders didn't give a damn about early in the campaign and said so during one of their first debates?

But then as soon the handwriting was on the wall as in Hillary Clinton was moving on and become the party nominee the emails 'suddenly' became important? Would that be the same Sen. Sanders whose now looking forward to working with presumptive Dem nominee Hillary Clinton--so they can take down Donald tRump?

[onecaliberal]

94. No, I mean the emails that have exposed the fact that the SOS used real names

Of Intel officers in unsecured emails to a person the white rejected as an aid. The same emails under criminal investigation. Ya know the ones hacked by Russia and China.
THOSE EMAILS.

[LenaBaby61]

113. You still must mean....

The same emails that Sen. Sanders said in front of the world that even he didn't give a damn about then

[obamanut2012]

140. So, Obama is part of the non-existent election rigging?

[Beacool]

92. Wow, talk about delusional sore losers.

Hilary lost by a hair in 2008, but I don't recall all these endless conspiracy theories.

Sanders lost by a large margin. Denying reality is not healthy.

[riversedge]

101. Take your stupid post down. Snopes says it is NOT a study.

http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/

[radical noodle]

102. Not only not true (as per Snopes) but

Alexander Higgins is a well known Sanders' supporter.

[AtomicKitten]

110. Snopes merely disproved it was a Stanford study- it's by Stanford/Tillburg grad student researchers

Snopes did not dispute the allegation of election fraud.

http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/

[Lord Magus]

120. "Researchers" who've declined to subject their "study" to peer review.

That speaks volumes for their (lack of) credibility.

[bhikkhu]

104. Wasn't she the front-runner from the very beginning?

Which is to say - weren't the odds of her winning always better than 50/50?

[BreakfastClub]

106. I feel sorry for you all. It's embarrassing that you believe this crap. nt

[redstateblues]

112. I recommend BSS read Eckhart Tolle's "Power of Now"

One of the main premises is that we must accept our current reality if we ever hope to move past it. It could really help some BSS deal with all the negativity that they continue to spew against Hillary on behalf of Sen Sanders. The current political reality, even tho very painful for some BSS, is that Hillary is the Democratic nominee and most likely will be President.

[creeksneakers2]

114. Researchers must have never listened

to their lib college professors. If they had they would know that correlation is not causation. There could be a million explanations for why Hillary did better in machine voting states.

Making judgments based on exit polls is wrong too.

http://www.thenation.com/article/reminder-exit-poll-conspiracy-theories-are-totally-baseless/

[senz]

116. K&R -- thanks from those of us who favor fair and honest elections.

I see you're enduring the usual abuse from the usual suspects and hope it doesn't bother you too much.

[MaeScott]

122. Stolen like Bonnie and Clyde.

[spooky3]

123. Snopes' take:

http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/

[tom-servo]

131. You don't need outright fraud...

... to convince the US public that one candidate is better than another, even though one candidate is manufactured and one is real. It's legal fraud. There may have been actual fraud, but I think it would have been used judiciously by experts.

[NorthCarolina]

134. Candidates aren't selected by popular vote, they are selected by those that count the vote. -nt-

[obamanut2012]

139. Kicking for the lolz subthreads!

[EndElectoral]

143. The hackable voting machine issue still has not been addressed to my satisfaction since 2000.

Nor do I think it ever will be.

[pdsimdars]

144. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Amen! ^^^^^^^^^^^

That's right